Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: Re T (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2008] EWHC 809 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:31 PM
Slug : re-t-abduction-rights-of-custody-2008-ewhc-809-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 5, 2008, 10:33 AM
Article ID : 88065

(Family Division; Coleridge J; 17 March 2008)

The issue whether the father had rights of custody in Oregon, the jurisdiction of habitual residence, was one that was apt to be heard in Oregon, provided the mother was able to be fully represented at the Oregon hearing. The Legal Services Commission was urged to reconsider urgently their decision that they did not have to fund the mother's representation before the Oregon court. The proceedings were not foreign proceedings within Access to Justice Act 1999, s 19, they were English proceedings under the Hague Convention; from time to time issues in such proceedings had to be determined abroad, under Art 15 of the Hague Convention. It would be very strange indeed if a vital issue like the one before the court could not be properly determined because one party could not be represented before the foreign court. If it turned out that the Legal Services Commission would not fund the litigation, and there was no other source from which the mother could fund the litigation before the Oregon court, the matter would have to be determined in a second best way by an English judge.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from